While sociologists agree that precarious jobs are “bad jobs,” this is not necessarily the view of workers in these positions. The four books under review represent a fresh approach to the study of precarious work (labelled “Precarity 2.0”). These authors eschew the conventional wisdom that standard jobs are always superior to gig work. They find that some precarious workers find meaning and purpose in their “bad jobs,” and some even manage to thrive, especially those who have access to public or private safety nets. The books address a wide range of precarious work, including housework, ballet dancing, residential care work, computer consulting, professional organizing, and art vending. Together they make the case that workers do not need steady jobs; they need steady incomes. Where this money should come from—government, family, or personal savings—portends the future of social inequality in the gig economy.
Christine Williams (2025) studied this question.